This web-log, begun in 2011 for the purpose of clarifying the true nature of the work and views of Dr. William Pierce, and to counter misrepresentations thereof, is not affiliated with any organization.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Without intending to create a false drama, I think you are
saying that at some time in the future, if I don't come around to your way of
thinking, you'll see me offed for the good of the race. To tell you the truth,
you make me a little nervous. In your June edition of NATIONAL VANGUARD,
in the short article on Rabbi Meir Kahane (I rather admire his honesty and courage)
and his effort to make sex illegal in Israel between Gentile men and Jewish
women, you write that death would be a more appropriate punishment for that
crime than the five years in prison suggested by the rabbi. I already feel the
blade whistling down.

The confusion for me here is that I am told by almost
everyone the same things that you seem to tell me; that if I don't agree with
their way of thinking I'll be sent to my maker when I least expect it. The
Soviets, the Maoists, the Fidelistas, the Khomeinites--and when push comes to
shove, even the Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists, the Christians and
Mosiems, the Right and the Left and those in between, the military juntas and
those wonderful people's revolutionaries fighting them -- all seem to be saying
the same thing. The one idea everybody seems to understand is that if the other
guy's in your way he's intolerable, so you off him.

The article on Churchill [“Churchill: the War Criminal Who
Got Away,” NATIONAL VANGUARD No. 82, p.11] describes with some accuracy
how I feel not only about the Great British Leader but about the other Great
Leaders of my lifetime: Stalin, Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Castro, Tito,
Hitler, Mussolini, Che, Truman, Johnson. What is there to choose among those
men? Each one was a failed man, a mass killer, and a disaster for the people he
pretended to serve.

The great issue of race relations might be mightily
illuminated in these United States if our citizens would simply stop following
their leaders, obeying the laws of their leaders, groveling before their
leaders. It's our leaders who insist alien races have the right to cross
private property, our leaders who build the highways from our frontiers to the
hearts of our cities and refuse to see even their own laws enforce, our leaders
who tax us under threat of imprisonment to sustain the alien races, our leaders
who issue permits and thus control all media and educational institutions, our
leaders who create the bureaucratic swarming that infests every aspect of
public and private life in the land.

I have no reason to believe that there is not something
unclean in the mere desire to see oneself as a leader with institutionalized
(governmental) power over others. There is certainly something unclean about
those who have it now and those who don't but are trying to get it. Where are
the exceptions? How can I know who they are? I think I've had my fill of
leaders. I've also had my fill of those who lust after being leaders.

B.R.S.Los Angeles,
CA

Editor's Reply:Actually, you are creating a bit of false drama in
your mind. The National Alliance is not aiming at enforcing a total ideological
conformity on the population (assuming we had the means to do so) and killing
everyone who has an independent thought, as you suggest. What we are trying to
do is organize a carefully selected group of men and women of our race into an
effective force for assuring a future which is both White and progressive. In
order to assure such a future, one does not need to impose a mental lockstep on
the White population. It is quite sufficient that the basic ideas and values
which we are propagating become firmly rooted in the minds of the population,
and that racially destructive activity be ended by whatever means are
necessary.

The great bulk of the White population has always been
ideologically neutral and even value-neutral; most people simply follow the
herd without thinking about it, always yielding to the strongest force. When
drugs, race-mixing, and permissiveness are held up before them as norms, that's
the way they will drift. And when clean living, racial idealism, and
self-discipline are the normative examples, they'll drift in that direction
instead.

************************

When drugs, race-mixing, and permissiveness are held
up before

them as norms, that's the way they will drift. And
when clean living,

racial idealism, and self-discipline are the normative
examples,

they'll drift in that direction instead.

************************

I am sure this will continue to be the case for many generations
to come. One does not have to regiment the people; they regiment themselves,
instinctively. What one has to do is provide the proper guidelines, so that the
herd stays headed generally in the right direction. One must also keep out
alien and destructive influence, such as the Jews, by whatever means are
necessary.

As for the tiny fraction of the population capable of truly
independent thought and judgement, what is essential is not a guillotine for
deviationists, as you imply, but instead a healthy spiritual environment, full
access to truth -- especially historical truth, which is the accumulated
experience of the race -- and the existence of a clear set of guideposts pointing
into the future. Each new generation of thinkers should not be required to
reinvent the wheel, philosophically, although it might be a valuable corrective
safeguard if a few in each generation do exactly that.

What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the race
truly diseased elements, so that they do not propagate. Taking a non-White as a
mate, whether with the deliberate intent of miscegenation or simply as an act
of egoistic irresponsibility, is clear evidence of disease. (I would indeed be
sorry if your nervousness in response to seconding of Rabbi Kahane's proposal for
outlawing sexual relations between Jews and Whites were based on personal
guilt.)

************************

What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the
race truly

diseased elements, so that they do not propagate.
Taking a non-White as

a mate, whether with the deliberate intent of
miscegenation or

simply as an act of egoistic irresponsibility, is
clear evidence

of disease.

************************

Being a free spirit, of course, has always entailed a certain
danger, and I believe it is best that way, because it encourages caution and
stability. The safe thing to do is to follow the herd. Don't insist on moving
the guidelines about or setting a new example for others for frivolous reasons
or through whimsical self-indulgence.

If you must strike out on your own, think first and then
tread carefully -- and responsibly. A responsible and non-destructive free spirit
need have no fear of the National Alliance or of a government based on our
principles.

As for leaders, I must admit that I share some of your
misgivings, although I hesitate to lump all leaders together, and I try to take
a longer view of their effects on the race. You say that each of the leaders
you list is a failed man and was a disaster for the race. It is true, of
course, that all of them except Castro are dead, and that some of them came to
violent ends. Death is an inevitable failure we must all face, regardless of
our effect on the race, and I cannot agree with those who see Hitler and
Mussolini (even Che) as less successful than Stalin, Roosevelt, and Tito, just
because the former met death at the hands of their enemies, while the latter
succumbed to psychological degeneration.

It may be worthwhile to remember that Jesus was in the
former category, while the head rabbi of the sanhedrin which ordered his death
was presumably in the latter. It may also be worth while to remember that even
a couple of centuries after his death there was not much in the way of visible
accomplishment on the part of Jesus, and he might well have been judged a
failed man. After another 10 centuries had passed he seemed to have been quite
successful indeed. As we continue to move into the post-Christian era in the
next century, historians will undoubtedly revise their opinions of him again.

It seems to me that whether a leader is a success or not must
be judged in terms of his ultimate effect on his race. At any finite
time after his death we still cannot be certain of what the ultimate effect
will be, but we should be able to make a better guess as time passes. My guess
is that of all leaders you mention Hitler will ultimately turn out to be the
mostsuccessful, that his efforts will
do more to advance our race to higher levels than any other.

Many Germans who remember the horrors of the Eastern Front
and the democratic-communist Occupation in the postwar years might agree with
your assessment that he was a disaster for his people, but I would refer them
again to the example of Jesus: the horrors of the Christian religious wars
between Catholics and Protestants in the Middle Ages exceeded even those of the
rape of Berlin by the Red Army in 1945.

All those people had to die anyway, of course, if not in the
battle of Stalingrad or tied to a stake in Seville, then at home in bed. What
counts is the purpose served by their lives: the effect on their race they had.
Which leaders failed and which did not may still be a matter for debate. What
is certain is that there will be leaders in the future, just as surely
as there have been leaders in the past. It is inherent in the nature of the
race. Our responsibility is not to try to dodge this fact, but rather to do
everything we can to insure that our future leaders are the right ones,
who not only have leadership ability and drive, but who also share our values
and are guided by our principles.

I cannot help but sympathize with you even as I argue against
you. I began my own ideological life as a libertarian. Furthermore, my
libertarianism was not based on theory, but my own inner nature.

I can remember well my reaction to ROTC, for example.
Although I loved the weapons training and was quite interested in the study of
military organization and tactics, I despised the close-order drill. I rebelled
against brass polishing and boot shining. I found the regimented barracks life
at ROTC summer camp, with its enforced “togetherness” around the clock, utterly
disagreeable.

Nevertheless, I recognize regimentation as being an
indispensable element of any effective army. I am sure that part of the blame
for the decline in quality of the U.S. Army today must be laid to the
de-emphasis on regimentation and discipline in recent years.

************************

Our responsibility is...to do everything we can to
insure that our future

leaders are the right ones, who do not only
have leadership ability

and drive, but who also share our values and are
guided by

our principles.

************************

In other words, just because regimentation is disagreeable to
me does not mean that it is a bad thing. And just because you and I may instinctively
rebel against restraints of any kind does not mean that restraints are bad for
society as a whole. Society needs leadership, if it is to serve any worthwhile
purpose. And even society's leaders need guiding values and principles, if
their leadership is to be anything other than a disaster for their people.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The
enormous media flap over President Reagan's plan to lay a wreath in
Germany's Bitburg military cemetery was entirely a Jewish creation. Jews
raised the issue in the first place, and then they refused to let go of
it. They wept, they made speeches, they demonstrated, they monopolized
the media with the issue for weeks. They used it to bludgeon the Reagaan
administration into going along with a huge new givaway of American tax
dollars to Israel.

They tried to use it at the same time to milk a little more sympathy
from the American public for the poor, persecuted Jews. And they were
indignant when at least a few Americans -- and a few Germans as well --
displayed exasperation instead of sympathy or guilt.

First there was the story in the weekly German newsmagazine, Quick,
about the Jewish pressure on Reagan to cancel his Bitburg visit. The
German headline was "Macht und Stimme der Juden" ("Power and
Voice of the Jews"), and the story went on to attribute the power of the
"six million U.S. Jews" to their control of the news and entertainment
media in the United States.

This straightforward statement of the facts brought a scream of
outrage from the U.S. Jewish leadership. Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum of the
American Jewish Committee characterized the Quick article as "classic
anti-Semitism and classic scapegoating of the Jews."

Then there was the uproar when a Jewish news reporter peeped at
Reagan speech writer Patrick Buchanan's note pad during a White House
news conference about the Bitburg fuss and saw the words "[The President
is] succumbing to Jewish pressure." More hysterical charges of
"anti-Semitism" ensued. Actually, explained Buchanan, what he meant by
his notes was that it was important to prevent the public from getting
the idea that the President was succumbing to Jewish pressure, otherwise
there might be a backlash against the Jews.

Miraculously, a fair number of Americans apparently did draw
exactly the right conclusions from the Bitburg issue. One Jewish
columnist for the Washington Post, Richard Cohen, lamented this
fact after eavesdropping on a group of professors who were discussing
the issue in the faculty dining room at Harvard University. Cohen was
shocked, he wrote, to hear the words and phrases: "Jew," "Zionist,"
"Jewish lobby," "professional Zionist." The professors concluded that
the "professional Zionists" had cooked up the whole controversy as a way
of bringing pressure on the White House in order to win more
concessions for Israel.

Cohen's bitter conclusion was that the Bitburg affair was "leaving
anti-Semites gloating and leaving Jews bruised and scared. Bitburg
excited the anti-Semitic imagination, and you don't have to go to
Harvard to know it."

In the years of ancient Rome's long and painful slide into
chaos and dissolution, the towering edifice of Roman law, built up during
earlier centuries of greatness, maintained an impressive facade. But justice,
like the other cornerstones of Roman society, participated in the general
slide. State authority was still mighty, but the corruption of the times had
transformed it.
The epitome of the change could be seen in a tableau which
occurred on many a sunny afternoon in Rome's Colosseum: One gladiator, wounded
and defeated, lay stretched out on the sand; another gladiator, victorious, stood
over him with sword, spear, or trident poised, waiting for a signal from the
imperial box that would mean life or death for his vanquished opponent. But the
emperor himself waited before giving the thumbs-up or thumbs-down sign; he
waited long enough to sense the mood of the crowd. Would the rabble in the
stands cheer, or would they mutter angrily, if he condemned the defeated
gladiator? Were they in the mood for blood or for mercy?
This was not an idle concern on the emperor's part. The
gladiatorial games were, after all, part and parcel of the whole scheme of
bread and circuses which kept the urban rabble more or less pacified and
permitted the state to continue its slow decay in moderate tranquility, instead
of being exposed to the dangers and uncertainties of popular unrest and
upheaval.
How often we have the feeling these days that the various
agencies of the U.S. government--in the judicial and legislative branches, as
well as in the executive branch--operate according to much the same principle
as the Roman emperors! Which is to say, they don't operate according to
principles at all, but according to their momentary perceptions of what will
elicit favor. And, unfortunately, favor most often is sought from a far more
sinister source than the urban rabble.
There was a more recent tableau, which in its own way also
epitomized the decay of a mighty nation and of the people who built that
nation. It was a small thing, President Reagan's presentation, on behalf of the
Congress, of a gold medal to professional Auschwitz “survivor” Elie Wiesel on
April 19 in the White House. Of course, there was the awkward fact that during
the previous week Wiesel had publicly and repeatedly criticized the President
for his “insensitivity” in planning to lay a wreath in the German military
cemetery at Bitburg. A man with any sense of personal dignity--and, certainly,
a President of the United States with any sense of the dignity of his
office--would have cancelled the presentation ceremony and delegated the White
House janitor to hand Mr. Wiesel his Congressional medal at the back door, and
then to tell him, in anatomical detail, what the President hoped he would do
with it.
Dignity, however, has no place in democracy, and the ceremony
proceeded as scheduled. Despite the embarrassing awkwardness of the situation,
if there had been no television cameras present the whole episode would have
had little significance. But the cameras were there, and the picture of what
happened was broadcast to the world.

And what a picture it was! Instead of accepting the medal,
saying “thank you,” and sitting down, Elie Wiesel seized the opportunity to
give the President a lengthy lecture on the sufferings of the Jews and “the
crime of indifference” to those sufferings by Gentile political leaders who
were insufficiently sensitive to Jewish needs. There was the quintessential
Jew, shaking his finger in the face of the Gentile President and sternly
chiding him, while the latter sat silently, looking up at his lecturer with an
expression like that of a whipped dog for 13 agonizingly long minutes! And the
world watched it all.